News for Canada

«First  ‹Previous   Page 21 of 22   Next›  Last» 

Wireless Internet in SD 20: good for learning, bad for kids?
Canada Created: 9 Jul 2010
While I very much support providing students with access to the Internet to expand their learning opportunities, the decision to provide all schools in District 20 with wireless technology subjects our children to "the largest human biological experiment ever."

This view, voiced by Dr. Lief Salford, chairman of the department of neurosurgery at Lund University in Sweden, is echoed by scientists around the world calling upon schools to restrict use of wireless technology until we have a better understanding of the health effects of low-grade electro-magnetic radiation, particularly on children.

Dr. Magda Havas, of Trent University, is Canada’s foremost authority on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation. In an open letter to schools, Dr. Havas warns “those who are responsible for the health and safety of children to think twice before installing wireless microwave technology in schools and exposing students and staff to radiation that could be potentially harmful.”

Dr. Havas notes that, “Very little research has been published on the health effects associated with wireless routers used in schools.” She points out that the same frequencies are used for wireless routers in schools as are used for mobile phones (cell and cordless phones). While research continues on the effects of cell phones on humans, most of that work is being done on adults, and not on growing children’s brains. Children exposed to WiFi at school may also have wireless routers at home and may also be using cell phones, subjecting some to radiation around the clock.

Research has linked cell phone use to increases in brain tumours. One study found that after a decade of cellphone use, the chance of getting a brain tumour increased as much as 40% for adults (Interphone, 2010). Research at the University of Washington confirmed that exposure to frequencies emitted by cell and wireless technologies leads to damage of cell DNA – an undisputed cause of cancer. (Dr. Henry Lai, 2010)

Research continues, but it is interesting to note that only 25% of studies funded by the wireless industry show some type of biological effect from microwave radiation, while among independently funded studies, 75% show a bioeffect. (Dr. Henry Lai, 2010)

Because of concern about health effects, governments and medical associations in France, Germany and Austria advise schools not to install wireless Internet. WiFi has been removed from some schools in the U.K.

In Canada, Lakehead University has chosen not to install wireless technology. Parents at Mountain View Elementary School in Collingwood, Ontario have taken their concerns about their children’s headaches in the classroom, after wireless technology was installed, to Health Canada. The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health held hearings in late April, with testimony by experts in Canada and internationally. The outcome of these hearings is yet to be made public. It may determine the fate of children in Canada about their exposure to wireless technologies at school.

In the meantime, I would hope Trustees of School District 20 and all other school trustees in Canada would hold off on subjecting our children to involuntary radiation. Our children’s long-term health and well-being are worth more than the short-term convenience of wireless Internet service.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Rossland Telegraph, Diana Daghofer, 08 Jul 2010

Overexposure to cellphones hazardous to one’s health
Canada Created: 6 Jul 2010
One of the most fervent and important debates in modern society is the one surrounding the health effects of wireless technologies. Perhaps no other topic has polarized society so much in recent history, except for the tobacco saga.

While in 1939 the German physician Franz Hermann Muller published the first epidemiological study linking smoking to cancer, and two 1950 articles in the Journal of the American Medical Association linked smoking to cancer, cigarette ads continued for decades, featuring health professionals, babies, and even Santa. It took thousands of scientific studies until establishments that initially adamantly refuted any links admitted to the potential health dangers.

Exposure to wireless technologies has become ubiquitous -- through cellphones, wireless Internet, Bluetooth, and other applications. But how much do we know about the impact radio frequency radiation emitted by wireless devices has on biological systems?

The much-anticipated Interphone study published on May 18, 2010, in the International Journal of Epidemiology, which received 5.5 million euros in funding from the same wireless industry whose product it proposed to examine, abounds in discussions about bias and statistical significance -- and is confusing. Even more confusion is present in many media reports about the article.

Interestingly, Table 2 of the article's appendix, which is part of the paper but is not included on the journal's website and was not broadly distributed and discussed in press releases, reveals the risk of glioma, a brain tumour with a dire prognosis, is more than twice as frequent in people who used cellphones for more than 10 years and among heavy users.

"Heavy use" in this study entails approximately 26 minutes a day. Most people would not consider 26 minutes to be "heavy." I would envision this at the low end of my cumulative daily exposure.

Many press releases and interviews emphasized that, unlike X-rays and gamma rays, which are known as "ionizing radiation" capable of breaking the double-stranded DNA and causing cancer, "non-ionizing radiation", such as the one emitted by cellphones, does not have sufficient energy to break DNA and cannot cause cancer.

Not so fast. Too many assumptions are lumped together. While the energy of non-ionizing radiation is not sufficient to directly damage DNA, every known environmental perturbation can act directly or indirectly - or, sometimes, by combined mechanisms.

All cells in all living organisms contain tens of thousands of different proteins that govern biological processes. One special class of proteins, known as heat shock proteins or chaperones, assists other proteins in adopting their structure and functioning adequately.

Many authors have demonstrated that radio frequency radiation of the type emitted by cellphones severely affects heat shock proteins, ultimately affecting cell division. Most importantly, this effect was shown to be a "non-thermal effect" -- it does not require the heating of tissues.

Safety guidelines in many countries assume "thermal effects" are the only possible mechanism by which cellphone radiation could cause damage, yet an abundance of scientific articles reveals biological perturbations caused by radio frequency radiation without the need to heat tissues.

Another non-thermal effect that was demonstrated for radiation emitted by cellphones is protein leakage through the blood-brain barrier, which severely impairs the proper functioning of the nervous system. Cellular damage was also observed in the sperm of men carrying mobiles in the back pocket, and independent studies demonstrate significant correlations with infertility, decreased sperm counts, viability and mobility. Several authors advised men of reproductive age to avoid keeping mobiles in receiving mode below waist level.

The preponderance of peer-reviewed studies reveals serious reasons for concern. Several countries have already issued advisories and prohibit the sale of wireless devices to children under 16, who are even more susceptible to radiation.

The Interphone study, speckled with uncertainties, shows one thing for certain: after some time, cellphone usage causes cancer. Further research is essential to better define this time frame, which most likely differs among individuals.

The mere fact cellphone booklets warn to keep the device at a certain distance from the body is one of the strongest indications that the radiation emitted is not totally harmless. As with every exposure, some individuals will be less sensitive, other will be more sensitive, but the mere warning shows something is going on.

While we need our cellphones, we also need to be aware of the health hazards. It is time to revisit our love story with wireless devices to ensure a long and healthy relationship in each other's company.

This column is not the opinion of Princeton University.

Richard A. Stein, MD, PhD, is a post-doctoral research associate in the Department of Molecular Biology at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J.
Click here to view the source article.
Source:, RICHARD A. STEIN, 05 Jul 2010

Critics blast plan to introduce wireless Internet at local public schools
Canada Created: 25 Jun 2010
The public school board's plan to put wireless internet in all elementary and high schools has Peterborough parent Teri Strain worried that exposure to radiation could lead to cancer in children.

Before the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board goes forward with the proposed multi-million-dollar instructional technology plan, Strain said trustees should do a little more research on the adverse health effects.

Strain was one of six delegates who spoke against wireless Internet in schools at Thursday night's public school board meeting.

Exposure to wireless Internet can lead to nausea, dizziness and weakness, she said.

"These symptoms all go away on the weekend when the kids are no longer in school," she said. "I'm not against technology, but if one child has a nut allergy, peanuts are banned.

"I urge the board to take precautions on this."

Jackie Donaldson, a Peterborough parent of two children, said radiation can affect the body in harmful ways.

"Exposure can result in damaged cells, and this is day in and day out exposure during children's most vulnerable period," she said. "Don't put our children at risk."

Donaldson said damaged cells can lead to cancer.

The longer people are exposed to electromagnetic fields, the more sensitive they become, said Magda Havas, an associate professor at Trent University who has been conducting electromagnetic research for 20 years.

"Children are more sensitive to environmental contaminants and that includes microwave radiation," she told the board.

Havas said 3% of adults experience "electro-hyper-sensitivity," which is described as having adverse effects to electromagnetic frequencies.

"The percentage among children is much higher," she said. "An accurate estimate would be about 1,000 across the board."

Charlene Creelman, a Peterborough grandmother, said she is electro-hyper-sensitive.

She experiences chronic fatigue, memory loss and headaches, she said.

"I don't want radiation in my body," she said. "And I don't want my grandchildren exposed to it. I don't give my consent to this."

Creelman suggested labelling the areas in schools with clearly marked signs warning everyone that wireless Internet is used.

"This board should be protecting students, teachers and staff," she said.

Board chairwoman Diane Lloyd said the board will look further into the issue and rely on information from Health Canada.

"We are certainly interested in student safety at all times," she said.

Wireless Internet is already used throughout the public school board offices on Fisher Dr. and in some schools, she said.

"I'm not aware of any school that's totally wireless at this point," she said. "We have a very ambitious technology plan we would like to implement, but wireless is only one piece of that."

Trustee Gordon Gilchrist, who took a moment to discuss the issue further with Havas and Strain, said the board plans to investigate the research.

"We're looking into it," he said. "It's the right thing to do."

In March, some Simcoe County parents brought similar concerns to their local school board, saying their children have experienced adverse health effects as a result of wireless Internet.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Peterborough Examiner, ANDREA HOUSTON, 25 Jun 2010

Woman keeps daughter home over Wi-Fi fears
Canada Created: 21 Jun 2010
A Meaford mother has kept her seven-year-old daughter home because of concerns about wireless Internet routers at her school.

Angela Klein urged Bluewater District School Board trustees to remove the technology until it's proven safe.

She said the St. Vincent Euphrasia Elementary School parent council and other parents are very concerned about long-term health and safety risks from the low-level radiation from the wireless technology, which serves laptop computers in schools.

"There has never been a study done on children's long-term exposure to low-level microwave radiation (Wi-Fi) and the biological effects, only the short-term thermal effects," Klein said. "We urge you to err on the side of caution, use the existing wires to access the Internet and remove all Wi-Fi until there has been a proper long-term study done on children."

Klein said her daughter has not displayed symptoms she says are connected with the wireless technology — headache, dizziness, nausea and vertigo, visual and auditory distortion, racing heart and memory loss, skin rash, attention deficit, insomnia and night sweats.

She she took her daughter out of school as a precaution.

In her presentation to trustees Klein showed a brief video by Dr. Magdas Havas, a lecturer in environmental and resource studies at Trent University in Peterborough who claims it's irresponsible to introduce Wi-Fi microwave radiation into a school environment.

"With a microwave oven, you close the door and the microwaves are contained within the oven, whereas with our schools, the microwaves are released into the environment. The school becomes the microwave," Havas said.

Director of education Mary Anne Alton said she's received information from three concerned from three parents and passed them on to Ron Motz, the board's health and safety officer.

Motz responded that the technology used in Bluewater schools meets Canada's safety code.

"Based on present published guidelines our wireless systems are not endangering the health of our students," Motz wrote to each of the three concerned parents.

"Because the believed detrimental health effects attributed to wireless computer systems are still unproven and because of the existing guidelines, I cannot recommend to the Bluewater District School Board that the wireless systems be disconnected in our schools," Motz wrote in his letter to the parents.

Alton said now that the concern has been raised publicly by other parents it will be up to the trustees if they want to take this any further.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Owen Sound Sun Times, Don Crosby, 18 Jun 2010

WiFi concerns at Mountain View School in Collingwood, Ontario, Canada
Canada Created: 13 Jun 2010
As some of you already know, there are several students in Mountain View School in Collingwood, Ontario (Canada) who are complaining about ill health after the school installed WiFi. Rodney, a concerned father, invited me to give a talk in the Community this past week and the room was packed with parents, health care professionals, people from the community, and the media so I hope it will generate more interest once the articles begin to appear.

See video clip of interviews with some of the students at the school.
See video documenting tachycardia in adults during provocation with a cordless (DECT) phone.

What is disturbing is that several students have complained about ill health, two students are now on heart medication and one young girl is scheduled for heart surgery on Monday June 14th. A student in a Toronto school (also with WiFi) fainted while standing in the hallway near a WiFi antenna. The students with heart conditions have been diagnosed with one of the following: vaso vagal syndrome, supraventicular tachycardia (SVT), or Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) Syndrome (abnormal connections or accessory pathways in the heart) a form of atrioventricular reciprocating tachycardia (AVRT).

Symptoms for SVT include: dizziness, shortness of breath, chest pain, a pounding sensation in the throat or neck, weakness, fatigue, lightheadedness, fainting (especially in the case of underlying heart disease) and resemble EHS symptoms.

Prevelance rate for tachycardia is about 1.6% to 2% for adults.
Prevelance for WPW is 0.15% in children. See: Epidemiology of Arrhythmias in Children, by R Prem Sekar. Indian Pacing Electrophysiol J. 2008 Apr–Jun; 8(Suppl. 1): S8–S13.

I recently heard that all the schools in my district (Kawartha Pine Ridge) are going to have WiFi installed soon. Where are these schools getting information that this technology is safe? I find this situation most disturbing. If these heart conditions are related to WiFi then I think the schools and those who make the statement that this radiation is safe (Health Canada and local Health Boards) are culpable.

Have received emails from several of the people who attended the presentation this past week and learned that some parents are also having heart palpitations and rapid heart rate because of WiFi in the home. They didn’t know this was contributing to their heart problems and have, since the talk, disconnected their wireless devices.

Why are doctors not better informed? Anyone who suddenly experiences a heart irregularity should be asked some specific questions about whether or not they have wireless routers, cordless phones, energy efficient CFL bulbs, nearby cell towers, etc. as routine questioning.

The heart problem (arrhythmia or tachycardia), which can be easily measured, may be a very important test for those who are EHS. Please spread the word and ask your friends if they experience symptoms of an irregular or racing heart and if they do ask them when it started, what changed at that time, if it is occassional-when they experience it and what they are doing about it. The more information we can gather the more impact it is going to have on school boards. Getting rid of WiFi is more difficult than preventing it from being allowed into a school in the first place.

Please distribute this email to your friends and let’s get a better understanding as to how widespread this heart problem is and the degree to which it relates to wireless technology and electrosmog exposure.

Thanks for your help,

p.s. If you or someone you know is experiencing heart problems, which may be related to electrosmog, please contact me with your symptoms and your experience and send a copy to: info {-at-}
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Magda Havas (via EMFacts / Don Maisch), 13 Jun 2010

Mast-finder - Canada
Canada Created: 9 Jun 2010
Here is a map of mast (tower) sites in Canada, sent to us by an active reader of

Canadians, PLease use it.
It will be added to the growing number of mast-databases you people send us.and we put at the top HERE:

So please everyone, from everywhere else in the world!
If you find a database of the Mast-Sitings in your country, send us a link and we will ad it, that way we can build up a International
way to find the MAST NEXT DOOR TO WHERE YOU LIVE ! And for all to see and use!
Best regards.
Agnes Ingvarsdottir.
Source: Agnes Ingvarsdottir.

I May Have Listened -- But I Wouldn't Have HEARD!
Canada Created: 2 Jun 2010
My Life 6 Feet Under Cell Towers.

If you told me three months ago not to hold a cell phone to my head or body, and that if I did, to at least have the battery pack facing outwards, I would have listened but it wouldn’t have changed my mind.

If you told me to exchange my cordless phones for good old-fashioned corded phones, I would have listened, but it wouldn’t have changed my mind, I liked my cordless phones.

If you told me three months ago to use an Ethernet cable with my laptop and keep Airport mode turned off, or to move the WiFi antennae from my bedroom and to turn it off at night or when not in use, or to get rid of all WiFi all together, I would have listened, and then wondered, "Why would I want to do all of that?”

If you told me three months ago that baby monitors should not be placed near babies or to ask my 14yr. old daughter to text more than talk, and not sleep with her phone or computer on the pillow beside her, I would have listened but still it might not have changed a thing.

If you told me three months ago that the microwave radiation emitted by cell phones, cordless phones, WiFi antennas, cell towers and masts, WLAN and other wireless technology was an invisible culprit causing thousands of people to experience all manner of symptoms from insomnia to high blood pressure, and should be avoided completely or at least whenever possible, I would have listened, but still I might not have changed a thing. After all, the government continues to approve these things, and the mass media tells us these devices are safe.

But before three months ago I hadn't spent more than a month living 6 feet under, as well as in front of, cell towers that were placed on my balcony roof. Before three months ago I was healthy, vital and slept like a baby. I didn’t wake up with numb hands and feet, my body feeling prickly all night and tingling or vibrating almost all day. I didn’t spend night after night in a hyperactive state, as though electricity was running through me.

Before three months ago I lived in a beautiful home that I loved; it was my sanctuary. I didn’t have a hissing or buzzing or high-pitched ring in my ear, known as tinnitus or microwave hearing, mostly when in that home. I didn’t get tension headaches ever, or feel like there is an invisible band around my head creating pressure, mostly when in that home. I didn’t feel bouts of nausea on a regular basis, sometimes accompanied by a metallic taste in my mouth, and I didn’t get dizzy spells.

I wasn't afraid I might have a heart attack as I slept on a makeshift floor mattress in my living room and felt my heart race all night while my body from top to toe became increasingly numb and tingly. I wasn't without focus and direction and unable to concentrate. I’d never gotten shocks touching my bed mattress, home light switches, pots on my stove, and with every stroke of my cats.

Before three months ago my daughter didn't have more than one unexplainable rash that hurt ‘in’ the skin as she described it, she didn't have headaches or feel nauseous and dizzy in our home, or experience the blood in her hand going cold. She never had sleepless nights.

Before three months ago I hadn't abandoned my home at the advice of someone who could have sold me thousands of dollars worth of products and equipment by convincing me they would alleviate this situation. Instead I was told, "You have to get out of there, if you care about you and your daughters health you're going to have to move."

I had never couch surfed with my 14yr old in tow while tying to maintain some semblance of a normal life or schedule for her. Before three months ago I hadn’t researched everything I could find to educate myself about the real dangers of exposure to microwave radiation, or electromagnetic frequencies. I wasn’t fully aware of cell towers and this invisible Wireless web that continues to be woven above all of our heads.

I couldn't tell the difference between a Bell cell tower, a Rogers cell tower, a Globealive or Wind cell tower or a Telus cell tower. I'd never heard of Industry Canada or Spectrum, Canada Safety Code 6, or the Bioinitiative report.

I hadn't spoken to Health Canada, Industry Canada, Canadian Environmental Legal Association, Environmental Health Clinic, Environmental Health Association, The Environmental Protection Office, The Toronto Environmental Alliance, Public Health office, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, my City Councillors office, trying to find some -- any -- answers as to how safe it is to live in such close proximity to a cell tower. So far none of them have told me it's not safe, but thankfully I have better judgement, a body that is telling me the truth, and Liala, Kevin and Magda to confirm what I already knew.

Before three months ago I hadn’t spent 15 days getting 2 hours sleep a night because my body was still vibrating all the time, and the rest of the night in tears while feeling like I was losing my mind from sleep deprivation combined with the physical stress of feeling fight or flight 24 hours a day.

I didn't have a clear and unpleasant physical reactions to my cell phone, the usage of cell phones by people in close proximity to me, the touch of my computer keyboard, or the experience of sitting close to the monitor for too long. I didn't feel my legs tingling -- and going cold and slightly numb -- if I spent too much time in the same room as a WiFi station. I didn't feel nauseous and have sharp pains go through my hand and up my arm if I held a cordless phone or a cell phone while in use. I didn't feel nauseous if I sat for too long or too close to a television. I do for now.

Before three months ago I couldn't tell you when I was standing within two to four blocks of a cell tower installation. I never thought twice about leaning on walls or in close proximity to the electrical wiring in a building, or lying on the floor above a basement for the same reasons. I never had to consider the effects of my neighbours WiFi antennas and cordless phone base station broadcasting through any wall that stood between us.

Before three months ago I hadn’t heard the words Electro Sensitive or Electro Hypersensitive. I hadn't spent hours and hours on the phone trying to find a good doctor, preferably one who knew what a cell tower was and the possible effects of living 6 feet under, or in front of one, only to find that it is nearly impossible to find any doctor at all taking new patients. Unfortunately for me, the ones that were, who offered the kinds of analysis or treatment I needed, cost an arm and or a leg or a plane ticket which I didn't have to spare at that time.

Before three months ago I hadn't slept in six locations over a period of nine days in the middle of a three week period, while trying to find a place where I could get a good nights sleep because even after friends and family pulled the plug on the WiFi, cordless phones, and everything but the fridge, my body was reacting to the wireless technology from the neighbours, emitting through the walls to where I slept.

Before three months ago I hadn't heard of EMF Solutions, Earthcalm, Magda Havas, Jim Vella, WEEP Initiative, the Electro-sensitive Society, a Qlink, a gauss meter or an Electro smog meter. I hadn't read stories from hundreds of people around the world whose lives have been profoundly impacted by something we can't see or hear (for the most part) but can most definitely feel… by microwave radiation, and electromagnetic frequencies emitting at levels not meant for human consumption, by something we are led to believe is harmless and benefits us in more ways than it bombards us, in favour of convenience and especially someone’s bottom line, over our continued health and longevity.

Three months ago my life got turned upside down by exposure to microwave radiation while living 6 feet under and in front of 10 cell phone antennas. I am now preparing to move to a home yet to be found, and challenged by the fact that I have to consider my recently acquired sensitivities more than the location, size, and cost.

There is no doubt in my mind or my body as to when and where this all began. There is no doubt in me at all, that human beings are affected on a biological level by exposure to microwave radiation well below the levels considered safe by Health Canada’s Safety Code 6. Hopefully, over time it can be reversed.

A lot can happen in three months, and like anyone else, I don’t like being blindsided.

I share this with you not because I expect you to listen, but because I do want you to pay attention. Pay attention to the choices that are yours to make, and especially to the ones that are made for you. Because even if I had listened to every piece of advice in terms of precaution, I still would have had no choice about whether or not I wanted to live in a neighbourhood rife with cell towers... or should I say live and sleep 6 feet under and in front of 10 of them.

Pay attention now, before you have to pay dearly.

Veronica Ciandre
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Veronica Ciandre, from Paul Doyon via email, 02 Jun 2010

Prof. Havas: Lessons from the INTERPHONE study
Canada Created: 21 May 2010
The recent article, “Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study” that appeared in the International Journal of Epidemiology on March 18, 2010, (2010:1-20) clearly demonstrates the flaws with the way we fund, conduct, review and report on science that deals with products that fetch billions of dollars and place at risk, at least potentially, billions of lives.

The INTERPHONE study, the largest (5,117 brain tumor cases) and most expensive ($25 million dollars) study on cell phones and brain tumors, involving scientists from 13 countries, was flawed from the very beginning. Whoever designed the protocol did it in such a way as to minimize finding any adverse effects. Despite this, adverse effects were reported — a 40% increased risk of glioma (a type of brain tumor that affects the glial cells in the brain) for those who used a cell phone for at least 1,640 hours with the highest risk for tumors in the temporal lobe and on the same side of the head that one exposes to the cell phone. In other words most of the tumors occurred in the part of the brain receiving the greatest radiation for those who had the longest exposure. And what did the authors do with this result?

They attributed it to biases and error. Why?

Study design to minimize finding adverse effects of cell phones

First example: A regular cell phone user was defined as anyone who made at least one call on their cell phone each week for at least 6 months! Would you expect a person to develop lung cancer if s/he smoked at least one cigarette a week for at least 6 months? By setting the number of calls so low (at least 24 calls on a cell phone) it dilutes the effect and favors a “no-effect” result.

Second Example: People who use cordless phones are exposed to virtually the same type of radiation yet they were not identified as exposed in this study. The cigarette analogy is comparing those who smoked one brand of cigarettes with those who smoked a different brand but this second group is labelled as “non-smokers”. This also favors a “no-effect” result. We must recognize that even those people who do not use mobile phones (cell and cordless phones) are exposed to the radiation from nearby users, from nearby cell phone antennas and now from wireless routers as well as city-wide WiFi in a growing number of communities. So the best we can do is compare users with those who are exposed to the equivalent of second-hand smoke. This also under estimates the real risk of microwave exposure.

These two biases were so powerful that the final result showed that cell phones prevented brain tumors!

Third example: brain tumors take decades to develop in adults yet only a small fraction (less than 10%) of those people in this study used cell phones for more than 10 years. Just as you wouldn’t expect to find lung cancer in a smoker after 4 to 5 years, you would not expect to find a brain tumor for a cell phone user during this short period of exposure either.

Forth example: participants were restricted to those between the ages of 30 to 59. Younger and more vulnerable participants were excluded from this study. This flaw is now being addressed with a new study based on younger users.

These experimental flaws and the obvious bias in the experimental design should have been caught early and corrected. But it wasn’t. Why?

How could so many of the leading scientists in this field allow this to happen? Were they lured by the funding, which came-in part-from the very industry whose product was being studied? There were so many flaws in the experimental design that this article in the International Journal of Epidemiology should not have been accepted for publication by a peer-reviewed journal. Indeed, the reviewers, whoever they were, should have recommended that this article be rejected or accepted only after major revisions. This demonstrates problems with our peer-review process that the scientific community values so highly but that process is deeply flawed, and this is just one example.

This study demonstrates that funding (25% of which was provided by the wireless industry) can have a effect on the outcome of a publication. This has been shown time and again (with microwave radiation and with other environmental toxins including cigarettes) so why would we expect this study to be different. Indeed several of the authors identified conflicts of interest and associations with the wireless industry that went beyond the funding of this study.

It shows that a flawed experimental design produces unreliable results. The two major results from the Interphone study is that short-term use of cell phones provides protection against brain tumors and long-term use increases the risk of gliomas. The authors attributed both of these findings to biases and error!

Why were Interphone related documents called Appendix 1 and 2 published separately in the same journal? Why were these appendices not part of the original report? Was it because they showed higher levels of risk for both types of brain tumors?

We have included these important documents in PDF format for you to view.

Appendix 1 Interphone: While the original INTERPHONE study stated there was a decreased risk of meningiomas or no effect with cell phone use, Appendix 1 showed an 84% increase risk of meningiomas for those who used a digital phone for 1640 hours or more and those who used both digital and analogue cell phones or if type of phone used was unknown had a 343% increased risk or meningiomas!

Appendix 2 Interphone: In an attempt to try to “correct” the “downward bias” a mini report entitled Appendix 2 was published as a separate document in the same journal. This appendix compares regular users who used cell phones for less than 2 years (as the reference population) with those who used cell phones for longer periods.

The table in Appendix 2 provides some disturbing results. It shows that there is a statistically significant increased risk (68%) of developing gliomas for those who used a cell phone for as little as 2-4 years and 118% increased risk for those who used a cell phone for 10+ years. In the original study these exposure categories were shown to reduce risk of gliomas! See the highlighted areas in this table with comments. Indeed the 40% increased risk of glioma mentioned in the original study for those who used a cell phone for 1640 hours or more becomes an 82% increase when compared with regular cell phone users.

So what can we learn from this experience?

We learn that funding can influence the results of a study no matter how much scientists attempt to be objective.

We learn that bigger is not necessarily better. Had the $25 million dollars been given to independent scientists in various disciplines to determine the biological effects of cell phone use we would have been much further ahead than with the INTERPHONE study.

We learn that a flawed experimental design produces unreliable results. Even the authors of this study claim it is inconclusive and unreliable (since they state that the effects of due to biases and error).

We learn that compromise is necessary for setting standards and establishing policy but not for conducting science. Science is not done by committee or by consensus and compromise. The majority is not always right and we have plenty of examples from various scientific disciplines to demonstrate this.

As I read the INTERPHONE report and interviews with participating scientists, I sensed the frustration with the process and can now understand why it has taken so long to produce this document. I expect that some of those involved are deeply frustrated and perhaps even embarrassed by the outcome.

Elizabeth Cardis, head of the INTERPHONE study, was quoted as stating: ”Until stronger conclusions can be drawn one way or another it may be reasonable to reduce one’s exposure.” This is a wise comment that we should all heed.

Cardis is a co-author of a paper showing an increase in Salivary Gland Tumor on the same side of the head that one exposes to a cell phone after a 10-year latency period. She is also now heading up a study with young users, called Mobi-Kids. Let’s hope that this new study corrects the flaws of the INTERPHONE study and produces reliable results.

Major advances in science often start with individuals who are curious and want to come as close as possible to understanding the truth about some aspect of our physical reality; individuals who are able to put aside their preconceived notions when they stumble across an unexpected result. Indeed it is these unexpected results that propel our understanding of science and it is those who recognize the value of the unexpected who become known for their “discoveries”.

Thomas Kuhn described this process and called it a paradigm shift. It refers to a revolutionary change in the way we understand some aspect of science. It is often opposed until the evidence becomes so overwhelming that it can no longer be denied.

We are currently in the midst of a paradigm shift when it comes to understanding the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation. The evidence that this form of energy causes biological and health effects that are unrelated to heating is now overwhelming. It won’t be long before the “old school” of thinking is replaced with the new, and when this happens we will see rapid growth in our understanding of both the harmful and healing effects of this type of radiation. It is my hope that we will also see a shift to safer technology and improved guidelines for protecting public health.

To ensure this happens within the next decade rather than the next century we need independent funding of science
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Magda Havas, 20 May 2010

International EMF Collaborative Advisory on Forthcoming Interphone Brain Tumor Study
Canada Created: 16 May 2010
The Interphone Study Group will publish partial results of its long-awaited cell phone and brain tumor study next Tuesday, May 18, 2010, in the International Journal of Epidemiology. Results from the 13-country, $30M study are 5 years overdue, without any justification for the delay. It has been reported that there are deep divides over interpretation of the Interphone results among the 21 investigators.

The expected announcement, under embargo now, will be the first time Interphone results for all participating countries will be released for any tumor type. According to Microwave News and other sources, the results will still only be partial results, publishing the data on gliomas and meningiomas but not the other tumor types studied. Data collected on the 1,100 acoustic neuromas and 400 parotid gland tumors, or tumors that are closest to the ear, will not be included in the results, to the dismay of many independent scientists and brain tumor patients and their families.

According to Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc., lead author of the white paper, “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone” (, published August 25, 2009, only releasing the glioma and meningiomas results means that “this large long term study purported to determine if there is a connection between cell phone and brain tumors will not represent an accurate risk of brain tumors within the 20% of the brain’s volume where the cellphone radiation is deposited.”

Morgan and the other co-authors from the International EMF Collaborative are calling for an immediate release of all Interphone raw data so other scientists can report the results of acoustic neuromas, salivary gland tumors and the risk of tumors within the 20% of the brain’s volume which is irradiated by cell phones.

Morgan says, “This data is already past its ‘sell-by’ date. Further delays in releasing the other data are not acceptable. In my opinion, the whole Interphone study has turned into a scandalous and expensive fiasco.”

Last August, more than forty leading independent scientists, physicians and other experts from fourteen countries endorsed “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone”. The design of the research protocol was criticized in that report on the basis of eleven serious flaws that cause any risk to be underestimated. Quantification of the impact on the estimation of risk in the Interphone study results will be presented at the Bioelectromagnetics Society meeting in Korea this June.

The report, “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern” concluded:

* There is a risk of brain tumors from cellphone use;
* Telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors, and;
* Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors.

Design flaws in the Interphone study included categorizing subjects who used cordless phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cellphones,) as ‘unexposed’; exclusion of many types of brain tumors; exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a consequence of their brain tumor; and exclusion of children and young adults, who are more vulnerable. (Read Press Release here:

Cellphone use has also dramatically increased since the time the Interphone studies were conducted (2000-2004), rendering the results of little relevance as a gauge of risk today. The small ‘heavy cell phone user’ population in which the Interphone study has reportedly found risk of brain cancer after 10 years of using cell phones only used the phone about 30 minutes a day compared with often several hours of use per day today among adults and children alike.

In October 2009 the Journal of Clinical Oncology published, “Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis” ( . This study, by South Korea’s National Cancer Center, including Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley, found high quality studies often show potential cancer link but industry-funded studies were likely to show no link.

Last week, on May 6, 2010, the President’s Cancer Panel reported that “the true burden of environmentally induced cancers has been grossly underestimated” and named cell phones and other wireless technologies as potential causes of cancer that demand further research and precaution. In its recommendations to the President, the panel stated “Methods for long-term monitoring and quantification of electromagnetic energy exposures related to cell phones and wireless technologies are urgently needed given the escalating use of these devices by larger and younger segments of the population and the higher radiofrequencies newer devices produce.”

President’s Cancer Panel Report:

Heads Up For Journalists:
Next week, shortly after the release of the Interphone study, the International EMF Collaborative, authors of “Cell Phones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern: Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone” report, will issue a statement responding to the Interphone study results to be published Tuesday, May 18, 2010 in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Commentary will be posted at Groups affiliated with the International EMF Collaborative include Powerwatch and the Radiation Research Trust in the U.K., and in the U.S., EMR Policy Institute, and The Peoples Initiative Foundation.

Resources for Journalists Covering the Subject of Cellphones and Brain Tumors:

Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone (8/09)

International scientists endorsing “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern” include Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute; David Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany; Martin Blank, PhD, Associate Professor of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University; Professor Yury Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, and many others.

Quotations from Independent Scientists, Physicians and Others on the Evidence for Risk of Brain Tumors from Use of Cell Phones
You Tube Introduction to “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern” (8/09)
Media Teleclass on Cell Phones and Brain Tumors with Devra Davis, PhD, Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc. and David Carpenter, MD (12/10/09)

Environmental Health – International Expert Conference on Cell Phones and Health & Coverage of Senate Hearing on Cell Phones and Health (9/09)

Campaign for Safer Cell Phones

A new campaign addressing cell phone safety has been launched by a collaboration of leading health advocacy organizations with the support of eminent scientists and physicians from the U.S. and Europe. The Campaign for Safer Cell Phones seeks to educate the public on cell phone safety; advocate for safer phones; revise cell phone radiation exposure guidelines; support major, long-term, multidisciplinary independent research on cell phones and health; and require both pre-market health and safety testing and post-market surveillance.

Campaign for Safer Cell Phones -Briefing Book – Includes Warnings, Advisories and Legislation from Countries Around the World to Protect Citizens’ Health from Cell Phone Radiation

Microwave News—“Children and Cell Phones: Time to Start Talking Sense” (5/10)
GQ Magazine—“Warning: Your Cell Phone May Be Hazardous to Your Health” (2/10)
Men’s Health Magazine—“Cellphone Risks and Radiation – Is Your Life On the Line?”
Video in Support of the Children’s Wireless Protection Act
Quotations from the Public On Ill Effects of Cell Phones
Download Brain Tumor Report (8/25/09) Cover Image (High Resolution)
Interphone Study Protocol
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Electromagnetic Health Blog, 13 May 2010

Health advocates and industry clash over health effects from wireless technology
Canada Created: 4 May 2010
Concerns over the possible health effects from everyday wireless devices have prompted the federal government to take action.

The House of Commons Standing Committee on Health heard from several health experts from around the world last Tuesday to discuss concerns over the safety of the burgeoning use of wireless technology in Canada.

Several health experts say that everything from wireless routers, cell phones, cell phone towers, cordless phones, and other devices are harmful to humans, especially to children.

Also in attendance were representatives from Health Canada, Members of Parliament, and members from the telecommunications industry.

“People are no longer having confidence in our government authorities in telling us that things or good or things are bad, because they have made so many mistakes in the past,” said Magda Havas, a professor of environmental and resource studies at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario.

While most European countries are reducing or eliminating their dependence on wireless technology and reverting back to cable systems and fiber optics because of concerns over health effects, North America is going in the opposite direction and expanding its wireless infrastructure with no end in sight and with little or no consultation.

“They're simply turning a blind eye to the research that's showing we should be precautionary and they're not even recommending precaution as a measure.”

Havas helps those who are electro-sensitive and delivers presentations around North America showing health effects from EMF.

Industry Canada says if exposures don't exceed the limits of Safety Code 6, there is no “convincing scientific evidence” that any adverse health effects will occur. However, Safety Code 6 deals with thermal (heating) radiation and does not specifically deal with the more common non-thermal radiation emitted from everyday wireless devices in households.

“There is no convincing scientific evidence of adverse health effects from exposures to EMF at levels below the levels outlined in Canada's Safety Code 6,” said Bernard Lord, former premier of New Brunswick and now the president of the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association.

Lord says the telecommunications industry in Canada adheres to all applicable laws and says Canadian standards are based on “actual science and not unsupported conjecture.”

Olle Johansson, a professor at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, attended the standing committee meeting by video conference and says he was both disappointed and surprised by the proceedings.

“There was not any official goal or aim presented to me beforehand; as a problem-handling or problem-solving scientist, I am used to having one.”

“I was surprised about the rather low level of knowledge (of health effects) among the committee members, as well as their willingness to take a risk with the entire Canadian population based on this low level of knowledge,” continued Johansson.

Concerns over the health effects from wireless technology is nothing new to Canada.

In 2003, the Vancouver School Board passed a motion to ban all future cell phone towers from school property over the potential health hazards posed to its students.

Ontario's Lakehead University is another educational institution that has limited wireless technology over health concerns.

The International Firefighters Association has also placed a ban on cell phone towers from fire hall roofs, citing dozens of scientific studies showing a link to cancer and other negative biological effects.

An increase in cell growth of brain cancer cells, changes in the protective blood-brain-barrier, increase strand breaks in DNA, childhood leukemia, changes in sleep patterns, headaches, neurodegenerative diseases, a doubling of the rate of lymphoma in mice, and changes in tumour growth in rats are just some of the findings of studies associated with the International Firefighter Association's report on RF and EMF health risks.

Reports of higher cancer rates among those living near cell phone towers have also surfaced in mainstream media outlets in Britain over the past few years.

“There are no research studies on Wi-Fi that I know of that the (Canadian) government did prior to putting them in anywhere, because they simply assumed the technology is safe and this is certainly unacceptable,” says Havas.

In Merritt, there is a cell phone tower in the downtown core as well as Wi-Fi hotspots around the city.

Havas says a buffer zone of at least 400 metres between cell phone towers and humans is necessary for safety, but with the addition of 3G and 4G technology, the radiation levels are even higher and require further distance from humans.

Several buildings close to the cell phone tower downtown are directly below or beside the tower, the location of greatest exposure to radiation.

Merritt elementary, middle, and high schools all have several wireless access points available for staff and students to connect to.

“We looked at it and it didn't seem to be a big concern,” said School District 58 technology coordinator Burt Bergman, who helped implement a student laptop program.

“We did some research online and what the effects are, what the impacts are, and compared to a cell phone, it's actually quite significantly less than your typical cell phone, which most people seem to use without any problems at all.”

Havas has carried out studies involving schools in North America that have antennas and wireless access points.

“It's definitely not safe to put Wi-fi into schools and its especially not safe to put them into elementary schools,” says Havas.

Havas says a common symptom among children who attend schools with Wi-Fi are headaches. She says when the children return home, the symptoms usually subside.

Although she doesn't expect anything to happen overnight, Havas says she would like to see Ottawa take the precautions that European countries have and reduce or eliminate wireless technology.

In 2007, Germany's environment ministry issued a warning to German citizens to avoid using wireless technology whenever possible and go back to wired and cabled means of communication and media because of the health risks wireless technology poses.

Havas and several others in attendance at the Committee meeting say Canada's limits for radiation emissions, which are lower than even Russia's threshold, also need to be revised. Safety Code 6 was published in 1999. It was amended last year over a minor statistical error.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Merrit News, John O\'Connor, 04 May 2010

«First  ‹Previous   Page 21 of 22   Next›  Last» 
 News item: